The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-10-28


submitted to the court tomorrow.
This ci. d d the colloquy on this point.
Attorney General Hunt resuming, said |
that the Jury law Of the State Of illinois !
was not attacked by counsel ON the other !
side in the State supr,mc court They |
stated expressly (reading from the pro
ceedings( that we have not thought il
necessary to attack the constiutionality of
the law, because ii may be- given Il -con-
structon which would make it unobjcc-
tionable.
"The contention supposed was" said
the attorney general, chat Judge Gary
had given TO the law construction in vio-
lation of the constitution. believe il
TO be well settled and established that this
court will not review the decision Of the
supreme court OF State rs 10 the CON
struction to be given TO its own
constitution and Its own laws.
The jury law Of Illinois has been
the common law all over the United States
and always. The provisions OF the law OBJ
jecteN TO in this case have been in the
statute book OF the State Tor thirteen years
| They have been in the law Of New York
since lS72-73, and Michigan about the
same length of time, There is some differ
ence between the lay Of New York and
that of Illinois in the wording, but the
| purpose is the same, and the constitutions
ality of the New York law was sustained
in its highest court OF appeal. There are
substantially the same laws in Arkansas,
Colorado and Nebraska, where they have
also been sustained by the highest State
courts"
The attorney general then called atten-
ton forcibly tothe fact that recent changes
in the jury laws Of the States, all had for
their purpose and object the procurement
OF better class and more intelligent men
rs jurors. Is il possible, asked the attor-
ney general, that the States are TO be so
bound by the federal constitution that they
cannot change their jury laws in accord
ancc with the changing condi-
tons Of their social and politi-
cal life2 Is il possible that whenever
a law is enacted in any State which
recognizes the changed condition Of affairs
"a law which is intended TO adapt the
jury system TO such changed condition
that federal question IL nised2 Then the
conviction of any man in State court
raises federal question and, under the
unlimited provisions Of the fourteenth
amendment, that question can be brought
10 this court for review. He hoped that
the court would maturcly consider the far
reaching consequences Of the construction
which the petitioners desired 10 have given
to the fourteenth amendment. "Mr Tucker
asks, said the attorney general, "if do
not suppose the fourteenth amendment
guarantees fair trial by jury2" sup
pose that il does but We hold that IL was
not intended 10 interfere With the power
Of a State 10 regulate Jury trials within III
own limits, provided u does not deprive
any one of the equal protection Of the
laws"
As TO the alleged unreasonable search
and SEIZURE IL is said that after the pris-
onen had been arrested their desks we're
broken open by the folice and papers and
bombs, etc, were taken out without q
warrant. The attonicy general said he
wouldlikc toknow how cripinal's instru
ment Of crime could lees.ls he taken from
him. lie knew Of no Process by which 4
could bc done " they were his own
The question for the count however, wa,
not "hOw was possession OF these thing
obtainedY' but rather, "what do the,
proyc2" In the recent case Of kor against
the people Of Illinois, Kcr was followed 10
South Amcrica-to Pcru-was brought
back without extudition proceedings, and
the court tried him aud convicted him.
II held that the question was not "hoS
did you get herc?" but "arc YOU gtiilty2''
This was ease involving higher ques
ton Of personal right than that involved
In the ease now before this court.
Justice Millcr-'rhc federal question was
whether the man, having been kidnapped
10y the Illinois authorities In Peru, without
resort to cNtradition papers, was protected
by the federal constitutinn2
Attorney General Hunt Yes, your
honor; but II was on account 81 the Illegal
method 10y which he had been brought
into the court that lac claimed immunity
Attorney General Hunt then took the
case of the prisoners, ficldcn and Spies, and
said that lac understood u would bc urged
by counsel on the other side that they, he
ing Foreigners -Fielden an Engishmar
and Spies u German--vcrc protected by
the treaties between the United states and
their respective governments; that thcN
should have immunity because the trca
ties provided that citizens Of England nnt
Germany living In the United States should
have all the rights and privileges gunran
: tccd by law 10 citizens 81 the United State,
! at the time the treaties were ratified. 81
understand" be said, that this will b'
b the contention"
The Chief Justice -InrNhat respect IN !
, said that this violates the citizenship o
Great BritainP
Z Gen. Builcr-They were 10 have all th'
privileges Of Americans NJ the ,latc Of tia
{ treaty, and among those privileges, VI
, contend, was trial by jury under the Law
? then In force. No laws 90 ID bc passed &
I change their condition under the Organic
, law-thc highest law.
! Acknowledgement Hunt replied that
a this were 20, then the prisoners, wiihou
a. being citizens, were privileged persons
4 above the laws Of the State which the.
. hold In defiance.
z AZ this point the hour for the adjourn
q mcnt Of the court arrived, and further NJ
D gumcnt was postponed until tomorrow.
/, Gen. BstIer's Brief
g NEw YoRK, Oct. IA Washington
Z special gives the following In regard TO But
q lers brief 10 be presented In the anarchi'
!. cases Of Spies and Ficldcn. lie begins b
: defining the rights .ni immunitics Of
n citizen Of the United Stats under the COZ
y stitution, aud then goes on rs follows